The 357 Sig takes bullets in 9mm diameters rather than 357 mag and, that's where the deferences end for me. Other than that I would have to say it is like shooting and handling a semi-auto 357 mag. Even the baby Glocks I have shot in this chambering are manageable, about like shooting a snub nose 357 revolver. In defense loadings I have heard about over penetration in gel although, who is to say that will mean anything in real life. Just my opinion but, you may want to shoot one first to help with your decision.

I have both and i find i'am more accurate with the .357sig than the .40 .I have a 229 and 239 both with the .357sig barrel and the .40 .Plus the Secret Service carry the 357sig round if it's good enough to protect the President it's good enough for me .

The 357 Sig takes bullets in 9mm diameters rather than 357 mag and, that's where the deferences end for me. Other than that I would have to say it is like shooting and handling a semi-auto 357 mag. Even the baby Glocks I have shot in this clambering are manageable, about like shooting a snub nose 357 revolver. In defense loadings I have heard about over penetration in gel although, who is to say that will mean anything in real life. Just my opinion but, you may want to shoot one first to help with your decision.

not sure i want it to feel as though I'm shooting a 357 mag snubnose. i was looking for more like a tamed 40cal. i could achieve that with reloads, but just thought it would be fun trying out a whole new caliber. one that i don't already own. based on a few comments here, including yours, this will be what my Sig will be chambered as.... thanx

I have both and i find i'am more accurate with the .357sig than the .40 .I have a 229 and 239 both with the .357sig barrel and the .40 .Plus the Secret Service carry the 357sig round if it's good enough to protect the President it's good enough for me .

To me the recoil is much less in the Glock than my Ruger Security Six with a 4" barrel. With 125 gr.loads in the magnum, recoil is more pronounced I think because the Glock sits lower in the hand so recoil is more in line with my palm than with the revolver. It's more controllable and I can get off quicker aimed shots with the Glock.

__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, but evil is not overcome by fleeing from it"

Of course not. That's why I started this thread. Just trying to get feedback on what others think about the round and I want to be certain its not going to end as a disappointment. Why would I spend $200+ on a barrel when I could use that same $200 as part of the pistol purchase? Regardless, the pistol (especially a Sig P226) would still be an investment.

I shot the .357 sig and carried a 229 for years until I replaced it with a Glock. The round is superb and I agree it is a bit of a snap on the wrist with lighter, faster bullets. The penetration and expansion is excellent and the Speer Gold Dots a great choice as they are designed for the higher velocities. I reloaded thousands and thousands of rounds using reformed .40 brass and correct brass. It is cheap to reload, using 9mm components. Using plated bullets, I was pushing 125 gr at 1250fps and FMJ could get to 1400+ out of a Glock barrel. I always used Power Pistol powder although it has a nice flash and puff of smoke.
I foolishly bought into the "big bore is better" theory a few years ago and traded all my .357sig's in for .45's. It was not a good decision for me. Buying an H&K P7 pushed me to 9mm and I hope to stay there but I wish I had the .357 sigs back!
I had a P229, Glock and H&K USP in 357 and they were all good guns. I liked the Glock best as it was lighter and more compact.

i bought the conversation barrel for my glock that took it from a .40 to the .357 sig... after 200 rounds i put the .40 barrel back in

the .357 sig is fun and kinda cool but at almost twice the cost of the .40 the .357 (60-70 cents a shot where I live) and the availability of the ammo makes it a gun that I wouldn't just go out and buy one